The most discussed topic in my “battery bubble” recently has been the question about Europe’s chances to survive in the competitive field of battery manufacturing. China is pushing down the price of batteries and the Inflation Reduction Act in USA has been attracting companies to shift their investments away from Europe (at least before Trump was elected, let’s see what happens now).

One of the ways to increase competitiveness of European companies is to transfer the results from lab to industry faster and better. There are a lot of skilled researchers in Europe who make great innovations in laboratories around Europe. How could these innovations be transferred to industry?

Piloting is needed

I just finalised a survey, together with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), focusing on tech transfer and commercialization of novel EV battery technologies The analysis was based e.g. on interviews with European companies working in the battery field.

In that survey, a common recommendation from industry was that Europe should put more efforts in piloting actions. This can mean smaller piloting tests in research institutes, or industrial piloting, which is already very close to production. Both are needed to transfer the results into a higher technology readiness level.

Pilot level studies at research institutes or universities allow testing of new ideas in larger scale before the companies will invest in their own infra. This will reduce the technical risks. In addition, if a researcher knows that he or she needs to eventually test the materials or processes in larger scale, it will create a mindset where scalability is considered already in an early stage.

Value materials with upscaling potential

I have often seen, also in my own projects, that a material with the best electrochemical performance is difficult to handle during processing. It might be very sensitive and requires handling inside a glove box filled with argon. Otherwise, it will degrade or have unpredictable properties. Or it can be very sticky (a common issue with polymer electrolytes) or brittle, which means that roll-to-roll processing becomes difficult or even impossible as the material sticks to wrong places or cracks. In some cases, the materials are so toxic that their handling becomes too risky in large scale, even if we would use safety equipment, such as gas masks.

It is possible to handle a sensitive, toxic, and sticky or brittle material in small scale inside a glove box where the atmosphere is constant and carefully controlled, toxic materials do not leak out, and the materials are handled manually in small quantities. But when we move to a larger scale, extensive sensitivity or toxicity will become a major issue. Thus, I encourage researchers to value the upscaling potential and have courage to stop using too much time on a material, which is too toxic or sensitive, even if it has good electrochemical performance.

The challenge is that researchers are evaluated based on how much they publish. If you don’t publish, it might limit the possibilities to apply for funding, or prevent having a promotion or even prevent continuing at all in a tenure track program. And it is not possible to get a paper published in a good journal unless the results are beyond state of the art. This can lead to a situation where researchers want and need to focus on the best possible electrochemical performance even if there is no upscaling potential.

But could we change our point of view a bit? I would like to see more publications about upscaling. There is also novelty in such work! Even if we have a material with average electrochemical performance, the novelty might be that it is very easy and safe to coat and handle, and that we have developed a process which leads to repeatable results and increased yield and safety.

In parallel, it is also good to publish the challenges and requirements for upscaling. This will help the research community to better understand what kind of properties are required for a material that can be used industrially.

Write the call texts wisely

Proposal preparation takes time, and it has become very competitive to get proposals approved. This has led to a situation where skilled researchers are sometimes spending more time on proposal writing than on actual research. For example, the three battery calls under Horizon/BATT4EU funding in fall 2024 got altogether 76 proposals and (based on my understanding) only six of them will be funded. As the consortia often have at least 10-15 partners, this means that 700 – 1050 organisations, including companies, universities, and research centres, used a lot of time for the proposal preparation, but they won’t get any funding.

This is why the work of BEPA, preparing the European BATT4EU call texts, is highly important. If the call texts are clearly written, it will help researchers to understand the call requirements and they do not spend time to propose something, which could be off topic. And if the topics to be funded are selected well, it will eventually help the European industry to use the results. You can read my other blog text about how the call texts are written, and how to join BEPA. I hope we can have there even more members than now as this will enable hearing the views of people with different backgrounds.

Communicate with industry

It is also essential to communicate with industry already in an early stage of research. This can be done in the form of an advisory board in a project or by discussing the results in conferences and fairs. Next time you visit a conference or other event where you can meet new people, you could have a couple of upscaling questions in mind, which you will ask from the other participants.

For example, I have been thinking that which level of harmfulness/toxicity is too much for a material to be used industrially. Battery chemicals are often quite dangerous to use. But what is the limit when the risks become too high? How companies evaluate this and how they are handling toxic materials?

The answer can vary, depending on the position in a value chain. For example, a battery recycling company might have a different opinion than a cell manufacturing company as they are handling the cells differently. Thus, is important to understand both views, so that the decisions in one part of the value chain do not prevent other parts functioning well.

In addition, one great way to communicate with industrial partners is to be a coordinator for an EU project or other joint proposal. Even if the preparation takes a lot of time and the probabilities in getting the funding are low, it is always a very good learning experience.

Some examples exist – let’s learn from them

I visited last week the Kokkola Material Week where we heard presentations by companies who are working in the energy industry and focusing on sustainability.

One of the examples was Hycamite, which is a Finnish company producing both hydrogen and carbon products, such as graphite, from methane, with a very low carbon footprint. Their concept is based on an idea, which has been developed in the University of Oulu for more than 20 years. This clearly shows that it is essential to support long-term research as such innovations take time to develop. But when it works, great things can happen.

Other examples, which are also described in the already mentioned JRC report, are Basquevolt from Spain and Altris from Sweden. Both are based on research from universities or research institutes and focusing on different types of next generation batteries. Again, it has required at least 10 years to develop the ideas into a commercial scale. But what is notable, is that both chose to have a crystal-clear focus. Basquevolt started by processes and materials that are easily scalable and can use existing equipment. Only after this is working, they can continue further. And Altris focused first on the cathode active material production and proved that to work on pilot and industrial scale.

The way forward

We can scale up and industrialise our ideas if we remember to focus on scalability in an early stage, communicate with people working in different parts of the value chain, and share our results and challenges with others.

Of course, there are further challenges to tackle, such as securing the funding. I have also heard a lot of comments about challenges with unpredictable permitting processes and the effect of poorly planned regulations. But these topics would deserve a blog of their own.

However, the first step is always to get the ideas from lab to a higher scale. And this we can do, regardless of the other challenges there might be.